db_health_check

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool makes '真实 HTTP 请求' (real HTTP requests) to each endpoint, reports actual reachable/unreachable status and codes, and makes '不做乐观假设' (no optimistic assumptions). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the name and schema. It does not cover timeout side effects or rate limits, but these are less critical for a health-check tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both earning their place. The English sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the Chinese sentence adds essential behavioral detail (real HTTP requests, status codes, no optimistic assumptions). No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how it behaves, and how the results should be used. The output schema handles return-value structure. The only notable gap is the undocumented timeout parameter semantics, which is already penalized under parameter semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'timeout' parameter at all. An agent must infer from the parameter name and default that it controls request timeout. The description provides no units, scope, or behavior advice, so it fails to compensate for the empty schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check which bioinformatics databases are currently reachable.' This clearly differentiates the tool from the many search/query siblings, which all fetch domain-specific data. The additional Chinese text reinforces the scope by describing endpoint connectivity checks across database endpoints.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: '返回结果用于确认当前环境下哪些数据库可用' (results are used to confirm which databases are available in the current environment). This implies using the tool before or while deciding which database-specific tools to invoke. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the health-check purpose is distinct enough to route usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.